THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 Constitution of India with the prayer that multiple FIRs lodged against the petitioner, subsequent to the first FIR No.180 of 2025, be quashed and treat the subsequent complaints as statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Anuganti Praneeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 10.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the multiple FIRs are registered against the petitioner herein and it amounts to double jeopardy and it is settled law that not more than one complaint be registered against a person when the offence arises out of the same incident and that continuation of the other FIRs against the petitioner herein would be an abuse of process of law. He further submitted that the de facto complainants alleged that they have paid amounts to the petitioner herein as the petitioner alleged to have promised them to provide jobs. When there are subsequent transactions on the same allegations, then they have to be clubbed together, but there could be no second FIR regarding that offence. Therefore, all the complaints in the present case portray the same contents and hence, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 gets attracted to the present case. Therefore, he prayed to declare the action of the respondents-police in registering multiple FIRs consequent to registering the FIR No.185 of 2025 on the file of P.S.

Utnoor, as arbitrary.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has submitted that contents of all the complaints point out the allegation that the petitioner used to collect the amounts from the innocent people, but the transactions are different and the set of allegations are also different. He pointed out two different transactions of which two FIRs are registered to make out the difference. In a complaint dated 14.08.2025, the allegation is that the de facto complainant was running a Plywood and Glass Centre and that the petitioner has ordered for plywood material from his shop as he requires the same for the furniture in his bank and that he has purchased the material worth Rs.1,00,000/-, but paid Rs.30,000/- as advance and has not

paid the remaining amount. It is further alleged that he used to say that he has good political contacts and he would provide jobs to several other persons. Based on this complaint, FIR No.222 of 2025 was registered on the file of Utnoor Police Station, Adilabad, and the complainant herein is Jayachandra Azmera. He further submitted that in another case i.e. FIR No.419 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025, the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner approached the de facto complainant Sri S. Vinayak and stated that he is an NRI and he is going to operate digital banks in Adilabad District and as he has foreign currency and as it would take some time to exchange the same, requested the de facto complainant to arrange Rs.4.00 lakhs towards investment for establishing the said bank and also promised that after the bank starts functioning, he would return his money. Therefore, the de facto complainant has transferred the amounts through PhonePe. The details of the PhonePe as to the phone number and the amounts paid are also mentioned in the said complaint.

5. Similarly, there are different sets of complaints and the FIRs, wherein the allegations are different and the transactions are different under which several victims have invested with the petitioner and are alleged to be deceived. He, therefore, submitted that since the allegations are different and the crimes were registered based on different complaints which referred to different transactions, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in T.T. Anthony case is not applicable and that the matter is squarely covered